THE MEAT POOL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18447, 7 January 1922, Page 8

THE MEAT POOL

Wl iVA" EMPHATIC DUNEDIN PROTEST. M V !<■'> ' „ fids®NMENT INTERFERCONDEMNED. The Minister of Agriculture (the Hon. ‘W. Nosworthyl, on December 24, sent a telegram to tne secretary of the Otago branch of the New Zealand Farmers’ ; Union, |Mr Hugh Mitchell), intimating the I hd|diri& a producers’ conference at Wel- ; .’h'i.tdiy'dW'lJanuary 10 to discuss the meat (f! pool' proposals, and asking the branch to ?:■ with the Agricultural Associav tion and other farmers’ organisations and with them arrange a combined meeting of bona fide producers to elect two producers’ delegates to attend the conference. The , Government, ho said, desired the fullest consideration of the question. On receipt of this telegram Mr Mitchell, in view of the extreme inopportuneness of j the mojcnent for getting a meeting of his ■ft council conferred with the presir i spl flip . Otago branch (Mr J. A. Mac--1 phoraon), and it was agreed that Mr MacI pherson should attend the conference. ; ” A • telegram in similar terms was- forf warded, by the Minister to the Otago AgriI cultural and Pastoral Society, and as a re- , f suit of this the society called a meeting of the various i interests concerned, and this M took place last night in the New Zealand f Express. Gompuny’s Board Room, when there was a large attendance, including a ; number of , producers, representatives of i commercial'‘interests, and others concerned iin ■ the .matter. Mr E. C. Hazlett (presij dant, of the Otago A. and P. Society) was in tlie chair. 1 Mr 'Hazlett said that the meeting’ was ; I the outcome of a telegram received from Mr; Nosworthy, and he took it that they ' must pass a resolution favourable or otherwise, and appoint two delegates to attend the 1 conference. It was for those present to say whether the proposals. outlined were lin their interests. He then called upon Mr | Geo. Black to read the proposals, .as al- ! : ready made public by the Government. J Mr Black did so. and then moved the following motion: — That this meeting, after careful con'd sideration of the proposed general pooling "R scheme for handling and dealing with ’• the frozen meat trade, recommends that the delegates appointed oppose the pre- , . Bent- scheme as submitted, 'but this meeting is prepared to assist and support any sound, workable proposal which will tend to plade 1 ’ this most important industry on a sounder footing and which con- • ' serves the interests, not only of producers, but of financial institutions and ••.'I merchants

In moving the motion Mr Black subthe proposals for the meat pool as put forward should i© condemned. He explained that they wore not all big own; he had culled many of them from various sources. They, jfc'ere:' (1) It proposes to re-institute a thmly-cHsgteeed form of Government coptrol, which is a blight upon any industry.' (2> iits- 'conditiong prevent competition in the 1 > purchase of producers’ fat stock. (3) . Tliereforo naany producers are practically contain to, receive lower prices, particularly fo^,-small lots. (4) It destroy* the business'of exporters and buyers of fat stock, at -a >- timo when producers need their' competition - most. (5) It puts the control and sale of all _ New Zealand meat into thp hands of an inexperienced board, which witf" ggmblo with the producers’ property. (6)-'lt-proposes to save costs of handling, and ■ begins by appointing two' boards, each member which is to be “adequately paid,” and . also a paid “controller,” “sec-retary,”-.-“manager,” etc. (7) It will add general depression in New Zealand. (B)',lt .will, take the fat stock business out of . experienced hands, and put it in charge of. some 'pool department, to the detriment' i of .-tfaa trado of the country. (9) It will j antafgohiao' the meat traders whom it ini' jufes both in New Zealand and in London, 1 and; ;they vyill naturally turn their atten--1 selling the free supplies from other j combines, against New Zealand meat. (10) It '-will -kill fat stock sales, for no ex-, j will -purchase stock to risk in a loss i by'aupool. outside his control. (11) It will ■; upftb't the store stock sgles, for there will -fit "stock competition to regulate the I .prices of store utodc. (12) It. wilL wijtKhold from the producer a percentage of'the value of his stock until the time when' > the ■ pool is cleaned up, when he > wants - all ' l -the { money now. (13) Being a pool; whose finance ia backed by "the Government''it'will have to be very cautious how .much lit advances against stock. (14)' It ,\yill probably be very slow in its methods, andvery wasteful in its procedure. (15) If it - makes * losses on its sales, it will comeback td- the' producer for a refund of the , money lost.. (16) It cannot control alb the . meat, supplies of Great Britain, as New Zealand meat amounts to only one-tenth part- of them. (17) It cannot regulate supplies tho .Home market. Under the pool i thero ’ will certainly be no. forward orders/’heiite no moans of knowing what tbddemaM is like. (18) The new procedure will.,largely . delay c.Lf.e. buying, and . entail', sales,,being restricted to ex store or ex market.. This will entail added expense ex boat to. ox warehouse of nearly id per lb, In addition to this, storage in London amounts' to id per lb. (19) If the board ’ decides that meat is to be held up in New Zealand to await a better market, what will bo , dpne-. -with the boats which meantime’ arrive in -the dominion, or are on their way? .Will they be held up, and at What .cost? ' And, when they are loaded,- J will a ; number bo despatched together and arrive together? Whose meat will:be given .preference in despatch? (20.) That many difficulties'will be createdin,.the ordinary methods of financing owing to uncertainty of values. Insecurity must render '--financial assistance in time practically impossible. (2L) That such a revolutionary scheme cannot he forced to a successful issue unless heavily supported financially. , Have the producers, financiers, or Govern-, mens got,the funds to carry out an eggrea-' eive .campaign? (22.) Without being pre- ■ pareds to spend any thing in making the scheme*. Workable, can New Zealand by a stroke - .of the pen place in operation the necessary machinery to collect, ship, sell, i and distribute about 7,000,000 carcases, 1 , endure. bitter competition, kill damning ad- '[ vortismg, and fight a coterie of merchants forced into combination by our aggression, J and wealthier than we are? (23.) Mr Massey j says the pool is to be compulsory, but to be, j ; controlled try producers, but that he hopes to-’ arrange that marketmg of the meat will remain in. the some hands as at present. Is this not more than a little paradoxical. At lekst.it is adding an extra expensive burden to the disposal of meat? (24.) Is it strictly, moral to use taxpayers’ money to support a schema .'whose anticipated benefits are to go to^one class—i.e., meat-growers only? (25.) ■With' its obvious intention of raising meat prices, what view must the general public take, of increases in the cost of, living? Mr ■ Black went on to enumerate the . blunders committed in formulating the scheme., ’.These, ho said, were: (1) That it has, insufficiently considered by the j promoters, and it is doubtful if they are / capable or sufficiently experienced to ade1, qitately consider it. or frame a workable \echfmo, - 1 (2) The Government had no right i to father it without close investigation. (3) The Government,’"in any case, should have avoided any idea or semblance or support of oontrob (4). That it is erroneously based owim idea that New Zealand can manipulate the meat market of Great Britain. (5) That in any commodity do not warrant- us 'believing a board of control could makea* success of,the venture. - (6). That the \ tjkrtlesa dissemmation of such an ill-digested scheme must raise the antagonism of our cqnquinpfs, and create in England a deplor- . able, lack. of confidence, -to our grave prejudice. The-motion was seconded by Mr J. Sinclair' Wright. !Mr ~0.' 1 .Todd drew the attention of the chhrriixan td : the fact that Mr A. S. Mali . cqfifn, M.P., was present, and he suggested tliat Mr r Malcolm might be asked to speak, as..he .was familiar with the position from the,-point of view of the Government and of (.the pool. ThwU'hairman and meeting generally welIcdmjdjtliei Suggestion.. and Mr Malcolm rethe invitation, expressing thanks noing accorded the opportunity. Mr - Malcolm- said he was not present as a champion of the pool proposals, but simply bccGAis&e he judged from the nature of the advertisement calling the meeting that anyone , .interested would be welcome. He tfiflWkwk at his duty to bo present at a meeting/,of ..suchi importance, and make himself conversant with the opinions of the people in jiO influential a centre as Dunedin. He ' in favour of the meat pool Wqgppa present. Ho thought that Mr Blaok was not correct in a number of his - Htatqmenta. For instance, he said it was a matter of Government control, or, at anyrate, thinly - veiled Government control. h Ho, entirely differed from Mr Black. The i Government had no wish to control, and, so V he knew, then would be no Gov-

ernmont official in connection with the pool. After careful reading of the newspapers he had become impressed that this Government control was the one argument depended upon for creating opposition in the minds' of the public. He would no enter further into that question, except to point out that Government enterpriser had sometimes proved very successful. No one could question the success of .the advances to settlers, a, purely Government enterprise. However, he wanted to emphasise the fact that the pool Would not be" ran by the Government, but by such a board as that of Messrs Dalgety and, Co., the National Mortgage or r any other of the big agencies, only in this case it would be in the one interest d£ the producers only. Mr Black said that the pool would mean taking the management and control of meat out of the hands of exports and placing it in the hands of inexperienced men. These were merely assertions. The handling of the moat would be placed in the best available for money. It would be a single control, instead of a disjointed control as formerly. One of the difficulties at present Was the fact that there were so many controllers. To this Mr , Malcolm attributed bad shipping arrangements and congestion at Home, , and he expressed the opinion that under a single control a good shipping programme could be arranged. At present there were interminable delays, and in the end it was always the producer that had to pay. With regard to Mr Black’s statement that the pool would antagonise those handling meat, every firm could, ship through the pool; a single firm could buy up the whole of the meat in the dominion, and ship it through the pool. There was little difference m the price of meat to-day as against the pre-war years, but there was a tremendous difference in regard to overhead charges, these running up to 4d a pound. The result was that in many cases the producer sent his meat Homo, but in the end got, practically nothing. The producer was entitled to take any step that he thought would better his returns.

Mr J. A. Macpherson, speaking with regard to meetings called in the country, said the documents from Wellington had not come through _at an opportune time, and it had been difficult to arrange the meetings they had had. . Speaking, from the Farmers’ ■ Union point of view, he had a great deal of sympathy with the proposal, but he would like to remind them that if it. waa not for the producer they would not bo there that evening. While he did not agree vyith all the points he recognised that the ’ farmers had got an opportunity now, in relation to the scheme, of obtaining something they, had been endeavouring to put into operation for many years.,. While they were not prepared to . approve of the scheme they recognised that it was a step of the utmost importance to the whole of New Zealand, whether it was the exporter, the commercial man, or the producer. The scheme was worthy of consideration. It was perhaps the first time the Government had come to the-rescue of the producer. He thought "it behoved them to look into the whole thing and see if some improvement could not be effected. ,He thought it coiild be improved, and it would certainly be in. the. interests of the producer and all * concerned. He did not ; .see why the same machinery used in connection with the wheat could not be utilised. That had been a highly satisfactory scheme, arid had operated satisfactorily. If they could use the present machinery to assist and cooperate with them they would get something to act / in the interests of all concerned. He /hoped they would be able to evolve some scheme that would be of practical use.

Mr W. Allan said they had heard very little about the scheme, which had not beenoutlined. They had heard generalities. As to the agents, there was no agent who handled meat idem the producers’ point of view. So far as he was concerned,, he. would gladly forgo 2j per cent, if ha could got Is 2d or Is ,4d more for-the farmer. The freezing companies could not be-mak-ing such a terrible lot of money out of dealing in meat because anyone could buy shares at a low figure. The middleman was not making the profits people talked about. Agents were going through the same hard-, ships as the producer, and were concerned in benefiting the produce?. He was just as closely in touch with the farmer as anyone,, and he wanted to oc-11 farmers’ meat to the best advantage, and get his money back when ho had been financing them. The New -Zealand Cabinet to-day were not good men to run their (the farmers and agents’) business. He could sell the farmers’ meat bettor than the Cabinet could. Everything relating to the business should bo left to private enterprise. If the Government was going to do this with the meat, why did it , not remit a 'struggling soldier a little- bit of his .rent? , Mr S. Wright said that as . far as. his., experience of the Government went, supposing. they wanted money to pay. their rent, or an advance to ship their lambs, how long was it going to take before they, got it? The mortgagee would bo in, their place, and they would be sold up; before they got the money from -the Government. It was a most ridiculous thing. They could hot do without agents. He was not bothering with agents at the present time, but he never knew when he -might be. —(Laughter.) If Bill Massey wanted to do away with agents he wanted his head read.— (Laughter.) Mr, O. Todd said that the men who controlled the big cool stores were buying in New Zealand, and these were the men the pool would have to deal ■ with. ft • would be rather bad for the producer should they be antagonised. . With regard to .the Prime Minister’s statement that the expense of handling meat was much greater now than if the meat were handled in one lot, might not the same be alleged in respect of butter, wool, and every other product. ,Why, then, did the Prime Minister not propose a pool for these, or a sifigle department for everything, as they- ■ had done in Russia, and so gone put of business. Mr Todd pointed 'out that the agents absolutely depended on the prosperity of the farmer. Every business man in New Zealand would welcome any proposal that would help the man on the land. He thought, therefore, that it was advis-. able that a conference should take place, and that delegates should be appointed fay the meeting so that the whole question could bo thoroughly discussed with a view to a betterment of the system. It would be most'dangerous to scrap the existing machinery without having something concrete to take'its place. The pool proposal gave them nothing to go upon. - There were no details, and the details of any scheme must be thoroughly gone into. Proceeding, Mr Todd condemned the Minister for taking the figures of 1920 as a basis. The figures of 1919 showed a great difference from those quoted by the Minister, and a decade of 10 years showed that the beef sent to London averaged only 30.000 tons, against the 43,000 quoted by the Minister, and the mutton and lamb only 140,000 carcases against 153,000. Leaving Russia out. of the calculations*—Russia had gone in for a pool, and had drowned in it—the world’s stock of sheep was 334.009.000 and cattle 337,000,000. New Zealand’s proportion of the beef supply was 1 per cent., and of the mutton and lamb supply 6 per cent. If they started to play fast and loose with the market, how long would they stand? Mr Todd said that there might be something in favour of a voluntary pool to lot the fanners feel their way, but the interests concerned were too great for other than the most careful consideration of any action that would alter die existing, methods.- There was too much money involved. In conclusion, Mr Todd complained of the bad effects of Government interference generally, attributing much of the present financial, shipping, and commercial difficulties to it. The Government should leave the matter alone, at any rate until it came forward with some concrete plan. Mr A. S. Cookson intimated that she Sheepownera’ Federation would be represented at the conference'sex>arately. The Chairman pointed out that in terms of Mr Nos worthy’s telegram the delegates must be elected by bona fide producers. Mr W. Blaokie proposed as delegates Mr Jamos Begg and Mr .11 A. MacPherson. arid the nominations were seconded by Mr John Miller. It was pointed out that Mr Begg was not now a sheep owner, and Mr Blackie then substituted for the name of Mr Begg that of Mr W. O. M’Kellar, Mr Miller agreeing to the substitution. Mr J. Sinclair Wright was also nominated, but the election resulted in favour of Messrs MacPherson and M'Kellar. A vote of'thanks to the chair and to the A. and P. Society for calling the meeting concluded the proceedings.

MEETING AT BALOLUTHA. At a. very largely-attended meeting at Balolutha yesterday afternoon. 6Ver which Mr John Christie presided. Mr A. .S. Maicolm, M.P., at the chairipari’s'-request introduced the question of the proposed meat P °Mr Malcolm said the Government did not propose to control the suggested meat, pool though it was willing, while seeking no advantage itself, to give every possible assistance. The suggestion \vas the result of long-continued deliberation. Schemes for putting the meat trade on a better footing had been dike us ted within “the Reform Party for three years. This year a Hmj dl committee hod finally recommended

a compulsory meat pool. The matter had been discussed repeatedly and at length within the party, bankers, shippers, agents, were consulted, and eventually the Prime Minister had submitted, the proposal to Parliament. It was designed wholly and solely in the interests of the producers. He had heard it suggested that the bankers, were the real promoters of the scheme. That ms not so. They knew nothing about it till they were consulted. Nor did any other parties or interests. Though the meat pool was proposed wholly in the interests of the producer, it was necessary that the- proposal should be .shown really to bo in his interests. The proposal would not be carried into effect unless it was generally approved of by the producers. The Government did not wish to force anything on the producers. It was taking all possible means to adviso the producers and to obtain their opinions. The proposal had been warmly welcomed in Parliament. Perhaps no other scheme of sgch magnitude had, been so warmly welcomed. Now it was for the producers, who were the people most vitally affected, to say what they thought of it. In the discussions amongst members two phrases were frequently heard. “Things could not very well bo worse,” apd “Something must be done.” During the few days he had been in the south those identical phrases had been used by almost every farmer he had spoken to. He- found, however, that some thought, that 1 the bad position of the meat trade was' due to a great falling-off in the prices obtained at Smithfield for our moat. That, if we compared 1921 with 1914, was not so. The Smithfield prices for New Zealand meat in 1914 and December, 1921, were as follow: —, - . N.Z. Muttoni 1914. Dec., 1921. Light ... :.. 5d to SW ,5Jd to 5W Hteavv .. ... 5d to sgd 4id to 4|}d ■ Ewes ... ... 4d 4id ' N.Z. Lamb. Light ' 68d to Id . 7|d Heavy 6|d to 7d 7d to 7£d N.Z. Beef. Hinds ... ... 4j>d 5d Fores s|d 33d

These prices show that with the exception of heavy mutton there was a slight rise; in prices as compared with 1914. The trouble was . that though there bad been only a slight’increase in prices, there bad been an enormous increase in charges. In shipping charges, though there was a decrease this year, 1922, as compared with last year, the charges for shipping mutton and beef were more than two and a-half times as much as they were in 1913. It was the same with the London charges on meat, including the management rote—i.e., receiving into store, weighing, and rent for 28 days. The result was that when all charges were, met, there was often very little left for the producer. ■ r What had happened was this. During the 30 odd years of the New Zealand meat trade, the various" agencies which handled our meat — including the- shipping interests— had or-‘ ganised and consolidated to stilt their own interests while the producers were just where they were 30 years ago, spoiling one another’s markets, each fighting the, other;each compelled, tb accept the terms of the consolidated, highly organised interests whiqh handled their meat. But middlemen could not be blamed. So long as 1 the producer used the services of the middleman, so long were the latter entitled to their profits. It should also be readily admitted that the stock and station agents for instance had often been gpod friends to- the producers,..many of. whom owed their start■ and / standing to these firms. But if the producers by organising, combining, and consolidatingi could reduce costs and increase profits, surely they were entitled to do so. The., question , then came to 1 be simply, would a compulsory meat pool be to the advantage of the producer. '. AI-. though he (Mr Malcolm) had still an open ■ mind-on the ■ subject, hq thought it would. Tlie overhead, expenses .should be enormously reduced. Instead of a. dozen or more concerns, each with its own overhead expenses and staff, there would, be oqly one controlling body, with 'one management and staff. The confusion and loss resulting from many marks .and the handling of small parcels would disappear. • Each producer would be able to get the full London price for his meat at the time of sale, less only administrative posts. He would thus save middlemen’s profits. The pool could arrange shipments so- that the Home market would not be 1 gorged. Meat could be kept in store in ‘ New. - Zealand till the Home market was ready for it, and thus ships would not be held up waiting to deliver'- their meat.' The pool, since, it would control all the meat, would bo in a strong; position to demand a reduction in shipping charges., It could probably assist shipping! companies, and so reduce charges by arranging that each ship should lift its cargo at one port, and discharge, its meat immediately on arrival at London or Manchester. This alone would result in an enormous saving. It'would be in a strong position to deal with with the Smithfield 1 buyers. It could not influence.' demand, but it could spread supplies so that they would 1 meet with the best demand. I oould take ample, advantage of openings far. fresh markets such as Manchester, where ono of the biggest and most successful business concerns in the world, catering for the wants of one-fifth of the population of. Britain, heartily welcomed the New Zealand proposal. It would introduce organisation and po-operation, where at present there was, chaos. It could probably arrange for fair terms for all classes of our meat. Almost half the lamb imported into Britain come from Now Zealand. Britain could not do without New Zealand lamb, and that fact cwljd be used to dispose advantageously of other New Zealand meats. What were the arguments against the pool? • Opponents said' they did not 'believe in Government enterprises, none of which had ever been a success. The meat pool, would not be a Gavtomment enterprise. (In passing it might bo, said some Government enterprises had been an immense success, the Advances to Settlers Department, for instance.) But it could not bo too - strongly emphasised that the meat pool would not be a Government enterprise, nor run by a Government department: The meat pool would be eon-; trolled by a board elected' by the various interests involved. This board would! be a board ,of directors acting for the producers. ... It doubtless would appoint a manager 'of great intelligence, business and organising ability, and wide experience. Such men were available. Opponents said that farmers were not business men. Even if that were true,. they could appoint business men to manage for , them. They did that at present when, disposing Of their meat in Britain, employing various firms to handle their meat for them. These firms, quiet rightly, had' to moke a profit. The meat pool board’s only object would be, not to make profits, but to get every cent. it. could for the producer. Some opponents said -the pod would destroy enterprise and cadi soles. Not necessarily so. Speculators or firms could still buy in Now Zealand as they did now.. Certainly as the producer would know that he would get the full London price, he would pot be likely to sell, but. the speculator would be at liberty to make him offers as now. Of course, any meat the speculator bought would go into the pool. Meat for our own New 'Zealand market would -rfot be affected by the pool, and would be bought as it was now. The New Zealand market consumed, about half oitr production. Other opponents said the British market would be lost if the meat did not go through its present channels. That surely was a pretty fall assertion. British buyers would still want the meat. They would know where to get it. Mr Malcolm, before concluding, dealt with a number of other objections to the proposed pool.

Mr Edie, M.P., and the Han. D. T. Fleming very largely supported what Mr Malcolm had said. Mr Crawford Anderson proposed a motion, supporting the suggested pool, and this was strongly opposed by Mr D. Murray and, two or three others, An-.amendment was proposed by Mr Murray to the effect that the proposal was unsatisfactory. and that freetrade in the business should be allowed, and. if necessary, a voluntary pool be instituted. Mr Anderson’s motion was carried, only six voting against it.

MEETING IN WELLINGTON. FREEZING COMPANIES CONFER. , GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS NOT FAVOURED. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, January 6.' At a conference of freezing companies held here to-day. Mr C. A. De Latour. chairman of the Gisborne Sheopfarmers’ Frozen Meat Company, presiding, all the freezing companies throughout the dominion were represented, with tie exception of the Wairda Farmera’ Freezing Company, the Poverty Bay Fanners’ Freezing Company, and the East Coast Freezing Company (in liquidation). The present position' with regard to the frozen meat market, and the Government’s proposals with regard to the meat pool were fully considered. The following resolutions were passed unanimously:— ' 1. That as. at present, advised the scheme is so wholly wanting in considered detail that it cannot- be approved. 2..That, (a) 1 it is desirable, and .it will welcome a reduction in the number of

consignments and the multiplicity of marks which have grown up under the. producers* requirements; that this can. be done and the companies will use every means to effect those ' reforms if small consignments are no longer required by the producers, fb) The companies will also do all in their power to establish voluntary factory pools, anfl to provide means in London for the effective realisation of the meat so pooled, (o) The conference will be glad to appoint a committee to confer with any committee of producers at a meeting to be held on January 10, or with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, or a department. Such committee would be authorised to represent the views of the companies as a whole. (cl) ’ That the charges can be reduced in New Zealand if the Arbitration Court takes into consideration what is a fair wage, which can be borne by . the producers, also if the Government approves of a board to negotiate freights for overseas export, (e) That preference to unionists having failed in practice has greatly tended to increase the cost of labour and should be abolished, (f) That the Govern-ment-be requested to consider to what extent a reduction as equalisation of railway charges can be made, on fat stock, frozen meat, and freezing works’ products generally, so as to enable companies to lower their charges. That this- reform is particularly needed in case of inland freezing factories, (g) In view of the complexity of the question the Sale and distribution of meat should be undertaken by a board or commission to be appointed by the Government, to investigate in London the conditions of the business, in particular ’the charges at the London end, and to make recommendations to the Government . for the improvement and _ regulation of the trade after ■ full investigation. (h) The conference still expresses its regret that the scheme for a national meat pool should have been unsettling as ik does all the existing conditions of trade in New Zealand, without first having received due consideration and. full formulation. 3. That in the opinion of ’■this.. '.meeting the details of the proposed meat pool, . which are to be submitted to the producers’, meeting on Tuesday, should be -simultaneously supplied to the ' freezing companies’ conference or committee.

OPPOSITION IN AUCKLAND. AUCKLAND, January 6. A meeting of representatives of the-,Auck-land stock and station agenta-and ..exporting firms to-day passed a resolution, to the effect that those present, whose interests are identical with those of 'the ■ producers, if the Government confined itself top a proposals were ' impracticable and extremely dangerous, and,-il persisted in, would-pro-bably result in the’sacrifice of the pn> ducers’ true interests, and general- disaster would follow. The resolution added r that if the Government confined itself to a'-pro-gramme, the objective of which would be to reduce the handling charges on meat and other produce at both .ends, and retrained from attempting to interfere . by hasty legislation with established organisations in New Zealand and the United KingCorn at present conducting the sale of New Zealand frozen meat and other products; some good should be effected in the interests of producers and the country generally. The meeting recommended the pooling of all small consignments at various works as at present don© by some firms and companies. ... ...•<■ , , CANTERBURY FARMERS AGAINST THE PROPOSAL.

, , , CHRISTCHURCH, January 6. At a meeting of meat producers. this afternoon, the ' following motion, proposed by Mr G. Gould, seconded by 'Mr J. ‘C. N. Grigg,. was. carried by ■2B votes to St—.. “That tills meeting of Canterbury farmers, while appreciating the efforts of the Goyernmentto help them in the present crisis, regard the creation of a national meat, pool as a risky experiment. It approves, however, of the setting up of a producers’ board to advise the Government as to any regulation of trade necessary to secure the more economical handling.and marketing .of frozen, meat.” Messrs J. G. Armstrong and E. Hay were appointed delegates , to the . Wellington conference. '

FARMERS DISTRUSTFUL. (Faon Oxjb Own Cobbespondent.) • • CHRISTCHURCH. January 6. Evidence is piling up f in Ashburton. County, says the Sun’s Ashburton correspondent, that the producers are distrustful of the Government's proposed interference with the meat trade; A petition that the producers be allowed o sell their meat in any manner they think fit, freely and not compulsorily, has been in circulation in Ashburton for some time, and up to the present the .signatures,number close on 800. One has only to compare these figures-with the number of farmers (40),, who voted at last Friday’s meeting in favour of the meat pool, to gauge whether or not the decision of that meeting was a -correct expression of the feelings of the producers in the country. The 13 who voted against, the scheme, and those who did not exercise their vote oh Friday, perhaps wanted more details before they pledged theif con-' fidenoc in . any such dangerous and risky scheme. MEETINGS ELSEWHERE. FEILDING. January 6. A large meeting of producers to-day, heard the Hon. D. H. Guthrie. Minister of Lands, and other speakers on the proposed meat pool, and carried the following motion by a large majority:—"The farmers of the Feilding district are favourable to the establishment of an organisation, controlled by the producers, which shall regulate the disposal of all meal exported from the dominion. Messrs Hugh' Burrell and Archibald Campbell were appointed delegates to the Wellington Conference. WANGANUI, January 6. At a largely-attended meeting of farmers to-day, after hearing addresses by Meeera W. S. Glenn and W., A. Voitoh, M.P.’a, Mr Poison (Farmers’ Union), and: others, it was decided, with two dissentients, to, support the,meat pool, Messrs E. Parsons and R. Farley ware appointed delegates to the Wellington conference ‘

OOMSIGNIVIENT BY LNMVTDtTAB '■ ' PRODUCERS. , TO THE EDITOE. ■ f Srs, —I read in your paper this morning that only criticism of a destructive character has been levelled at the Government schema, for pooling our frozen meat which will deprive' the producer of the inalienable right of dealing with his own property There has been far too much Governmental interference with, our producers’ interecw during 1 the war, and to this I do not hesitate to''’attribute ’ the lamentable position of too many of our farmers to-day.' Will' you therefore permit me through your paper to offer suggestions which I think 5 would obviate the .necessity for Government interference in any shape or form, and conserve to the producer, without undue risk, the' enormous profits .which have : been' falling into the hnnds.of our dominion meat trusts, which appear to me even more formidable than; those of Armour and Col? v" r

To my personal knowledge, the system ,ot purchase By middlemen on the hoof here was .not contemplated by the pioneers of the frozen meat trade, as every producer was supposed to undertake the risks of consignment, and to the everlasting credit of Sir George '.Clifford bo it said that his company is the only one of the older concerns which has not departed from the original: traditions, greatly to the advantage of its clients and shareholding supporters. My scheme, therefore, is no novel one, but only a reversion to that formulated by the pioneers of the trade. Efforts should be made to show every producer that it would bo to his own interest to undertake the risk of consignment, which has proved so profitable to the middleman. I am aware that the meat • commandeer has for the time being killed the Home market for ' New Zealand mutton and lamb and allowed in» feripr brands from other countries to take their "place. The fact, however, that our lamb was in great demand early last season at the phenomenal price of lOd per lb, when Imperial Government interference was supposed to end, shows the estimation, in which it was held by distributors and consumers, and only subsequent Government meddling and muddling with the overplus has disorganised the market for both meat and dairy product. There is no doubt that pooling and grading which has proved euch an advantage to dairy products would bo an equal benefit to frozen meat, and to this extent only would I permit Government ’ interference. If it can be carried out with fairness and success , with the highly varying qualities of milk there is no reason why some scheme of grading should not be equally successful in the case of butcher moat. Instead of a bill of lading for so many carcases, the producer would receive one for so many pounds weight of moat of tiha various descriptions and qualities, and consignments could be made by the. producers themselves through their bankers or financial agents, all of whom have perfect arrangements with their London offices or agents for dealing successfully with them. It would be a thousand pities to dispense

with and disorganise the various selling agencies in London, which have proved of immense benefit in the past and would also have been of immense benefit during the war to producers here. if they could have taken advantage of their services. As to the financial part of the scheme, I think it would suit the bank to distribute their-London bill risks, instead of advancing larger sums to frozen meat companies, as their balance sheets show they now do. The producers of to-day knows little of the difficulties encountered and successfully overcome by the pioneers of this trade, and the losses sustained by them in organising the introduction of a new product on the London market; but this having been successfully accomplished, I apprehend. that the, quality of our products will again assert itself when brought in contact, through the usual channels, with the lower grade article from other countries, which for the time being has taken its place. I have every confidence in Mr Massey’s fair-mindedness, but he cannot always remain Prime Minister, and I would hesitate to place the same confidence in anyone who may take his dace in the proposed quasi-control of such a gigantic interest as this.—l am, etc., ■ Wu Milne. • Oamaru, January 5.